This is an appeal from the decision of the Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, dated 12th of January, 1993, whereby the grievance petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. The appellant was employed as a Naib-Qasid in the office of the Chief Cashier and Treasurer, Lahore which is an administrative office under the Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, Headquarters Office, Lahore. On 8th of August, 1989 he was served with a charge-sheet (Exh. R-3) on the allegations that he habitually remained absent from duty off and on without any intimation and he was again absent continuously without intimation since 4th of July, 1989. On 10th of August, 1989 the appellant submitted his reply (Exh.R-2) admitting the charges against him and pleading that his absence on many dates had occurred due to the illness of his wife. This reply was considered unsatisfactory. On 23rd of August, 1989 he was served with a show---cause notice (Exh.
R-4) requiring him to show cause against imposition of a major penalty of removal from service.
The appellant did not submit his reply to the show-cause notice. He was, therefore, removed from service vide order dated 25th of October, 1989 (Exh. R-6) which was served on him on 6th of November, 1989 vide Exh. R-5. The appellant filed an appeal on 29th of November, 1989 against his removal from service. This appeal was rejected vide order, dated 12th of June, 1990 (Exh: R-7). On 30th of July, 1990 he served a grievance notice to which he received a reply on 2nd of September, 1990. On 18th of September, 1990 he filed a grievance petition assailing his removal from service on the grounds that no inquiry was held against him and that he was not heard before he was removed from service.
3. The respondents contested the grievance petition controverting the contentions of the appellant and raising a preliminary objection that the appellant was a civil servant and, therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction in the matter.
4. The appellant in support of his grievance petition examined himself as P.W.1. Aftab Ahmad Qureshi, an Assistant Treasurer, entered the witness-box in rebuttal as R.W.1. After appraising the evidence, the learned Labour Court held that the appellant was a civil servant and that his removal from service had been ordered after observing due formalities. In view of these findings, the grievance petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The appellant is admittedly employed in the office of the Chief Cashier and Treasurer which is an administrative office under the Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, Headquarters Office, Lahore. The learned Labour Court has found that in view of this fact, the appellant is a civil servant and does not fall within the category of `worker'. The finding of the learned Labour Court is in accordance with the definition of `workman' given in section 2(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1930 which provides that "workman" means any person who is a railway servant as defined in section 3 of the Railways Act, 1890, not permanently employed in any administrative, district or sub-divisional office of a railway and not employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer and others v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others PLD 1985 Lah. 420, wherein the High Court in a writ petition treated a peon employed in the Railways Accounts Department (Cash Office), which too is an administrative unit, as a workman. It was observed in the precedent case that "it is the nature of the duty which makes a man whether he is holding an administrative office or is a workman". It was found that the duty of the peon involved in that case was to accompany the cashier to the hospitals, schools, workshops etc. For the distribution of salaries, to carry cash box and bag of money to the above places and to bring them back to the strong room. It was in view of these outdoor duties that he was held to be a workman. However, the appellant in this case was not required to perform such duties. His duty according to Aftab Ahmad Qureshi (R.W.1), was to distribute dak and carry papers and applications to other sections or officers. It means that he was not required to perform any duty outside the office. Therefore, the precedent relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant does not apply to the facts of this case. I, therefore, uphold the finding of the learned Labour Court that the appellant was not a workman and, therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction in the matter.
6. On merits, it is manifest from the evidence on record that the appellant was charge-sheeted and on the basis of the explanation submitted by him, he was served with a show-cause notice and then removed from service. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order of removal from service, contravened any rule or procedure. The charge was in fact admitted. The sickness of the wife of the appellant did not justify his habitual absence and did not absolve him of the obligation to submit applications for leave. I, therefore, affirm the finding of the learned Labour Court that the appellant's removal from service was legal.
7. The learned Labour Court has also observed in the impugned decision that the appellant had failed to prove the service of grievance notice. This observation is erroneous. The appellant averred in paragraph 6 of the grievance petition that he served a grievance notice on the respondents on 30th of July, 1990 and he received reply thereto on 9th of September, 1990. This averment was admitted by the respondents in the written statement.
8. For the above reasons, the impugned decision is upheld and this appeal is dismissed.